The need of the landlord for more accommodation raises a presumption of bona fide requirement, and the tenant must pay the amount demanded by the landlord to avoid eviction.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 07th March 2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Dhule, in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2009 and Judgment and decree dated 9th May, 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Dhule, in Regular Civil Suit NO. 431 of 2004.

2. It is the case of the revision applicant that, he was inducted as tenant by Shamrao Raghunathrao Kulkarni, the original landlord, father-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and grand father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4. The revision applicant is running his business in the suit premises since 1985. It is the case of the revision applicant that, the agreed rent for tenancy was of Rs. 200/per month. It was regularly paid by the revision applicant. The rent was regularly accepted by Shamrao Kulkarni, after his demise his son Prakash Kulkarni, husband of the applicant No.1 and thereafter, by plaintiff No.1.

3. On 9th December, 2004, Regular Civil Suit N0. 431 of 2004 came to be filed before the Civil Judge Junior Division Dhule, by the respondents for eviction on the ground of willful default and for possession on the ground of bonafide requirement. It was contended that:

(1) Agreed rent was Rs. 300/out of which only Rs. 200/was paid by the applicant.

(2) Since the year 1985, there is default on the part of defendant to pay the rent.

(3) The plaintiff bonafide required the property for starting the business of Screen Printing, Book Shop and library.

4. It is the case of the revision applicant that, the original landlord, his son Prakash and thereafter plaintiff No.1 has also accepted rent of Rs.200/Per month. No dispute was ever raised about that by Shamrao Kulkarni, his son Praksh Kulkarni nor by the plaintiff No. 1 till filing of the suit. It is the contention of the revision applicant that, there is no single whisper in the plaint about availability of alternate premises to the plaintiff.

5. The revision applicant has filed his written statement on 5th April, 2005 before the Trial Court. The suit was contested by the revision applicant mainly on the grounds that-

(1) There is no default on the part of petitioner to pay rent as the agreed rent was Rs.200/which has been regularly paid.

(2) There is no cause to file the suit under provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

(3) There is no alternate premises available to petitioner.

(4) There is no bonafide requirement to the plaintiffs. This is an attempt to earn money by the plaintiffs.

(5) The petitioner would loose his livelihood, which is dependent on the business which is carried on in the suit premises since 1985.

6. On 9th May, 2009 the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhule pleased to pass the decree in the Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit NO. 432 of 2004. On 1st July 2009, Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2009, filed by the revision applicant before the District Judge Dhule, challenging the judgment and decree, passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhule on 9th May, 2009, came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, on 7th March, 2011. Hence, this Civil Revision Application.

Learned Counsel for revision applicant submits that the applicant is not willful defaulter. The agreed rent was Rs. 200/per month. The rent was regularly paid to the landlord, namely, Shamrao Raghunath Kulkarni and his son Prakash Kulkarni and thereafter plaintiff NO.1, who in turn accepted without raising any dispute in that regard. This itself shows that, the agreed rent was Rs.200/per month. It is further submitted that, the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands, as such, there is no whisper in the plaint by the plaintiff about availability of alternate accommodation, but in the cross examination, plaintiff No.1 has admitted that there is one shop available on the u